Rishi D. Naik, MD, MSCI

As a first-year gastroenterology fellow, banding my first patient with a variceal bleed was an exciting – but also stress-provoking – event. What if I banded incorrectly and caused more bleeding? With a successful band, a patient’s hemorrhagic shock is now controlled, hemodynamics improved, and euphoria takes over. Now, in my third year of a gastroenterology fellowship but my first year of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Editorial Fellowship, preparing to present the first manuscript that I handled to the Board of Editors at our weekly meeting has now induced the same excitement and need for the same level of dedication. Have I researched the foundational literature that this current manuscript was built on? What is the trajectory of this research and will this project be interesting to our readers and lead to breakthroughs in the field?

Gastroenterology is the premier flagship journal of the AGA and, in this Editorial Fellowship, I was selected to spend a fully immersive 1-year experience working on all aspects of this journal. In its second year of inception, I echo Dr. Eric Shah’s insight into the transformative and immersive nature of this fellowship.¹ In this role, I have made three developments, and each one has left me with a valuable lesson.

Mentorship

My first development was as a direct mentee under the leadership of the two editors in chief Richard Peek, MD, and Douglas Corley, MD, and associate editor John Inadomi, MD. In this role, I reviewed submitted manuscripts regarding outcome data of oncologic studies in the fields of colon, esophageal, and gastric cancer. I served as a reviewer for submitted manuscripts and discussed the impact, novelty, and decision for publication with the Board of Editors. In our weekly meetings, the associate editors discussed manuscripts that needed further review prior to acceptance, revision, or rejection. A few themes underpinned the discussion of these manuscripts:

• Is this science reproducible and is there scientific rigor for study design, validity, and analysis?
• How does this manuscript add to the current state of the literature?
• What is the trajectory of this research field?
• How will this manuscript lead to breakthroughs in this field?
• Are the advancements in this manuscript likely to lead to paradigm shifts in the field in its approach, design, or findings?

I also was fortunate to meet leaders in the field, including working daily in person with multiple members of the Board of Editors at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., as well as visiting professors, including Dr. Corley, Linda Rabeneck, MD, and T. Jake Liang, MD, who not only spoke on their scientific inquiries but also about their transitional path from gastroenterology fellows to pioneers in their respective fields. From these lessons, I have learned the scientific rigor of manuscript review for Gastroenterology and how to approach modern challenges in our field to directly improve patient care.
 

AGA’s commitment to early-career investigators

The Editorial Fellowship allowed me to expand a traditional third-year gastroenterology fellowship to dive deep into the intense path to get a manuscript published in Gastroenterology. Whereas 1 year prior, I had found dilating a complete esophageal stricture difficult, I now found myself learning to master clinical trial design, applying modern techniques of artificial intelligence, understanding organoid development, and navigating the impact of the microbiome. I was fortunate to be selected for Vanderbilt’s Master’s in Science in Clinical Investigation, which allowed me to apply my education not only to my own research but also to synergistically understand and deconstruct new submissions ranging from modern statistics with Bayesian modeling to analysis of large genetic data. All of this was built in the supportive framework of my mentoring committee.

As a fellow, I am inspired to see the multicenter, international collaboration to answer important questions in our field. Leveraging large databases and the expertise of multiple investigators, breakthroughs were made because of the collaborative nature of the science. This also was felt in the review process, where experts generously reviewed manuscripts to enhance the quality of the submission in order to advance knowledge in the field. Reading hundreds of these reviews this year has allowed me to refocus my current research studies and improve the way I write my current reviews. In the spirit of reproducible science and challenging the precision of study design, I was impressed by the time, effort, and dedication reviewers from our field spent to help improve the literature. Dr. Peek and Dr. Corley, our editors in chief, committed their time in discussing my innovations and critiques and displayed their level of interest in the opinions of early-career investigators and fostering the next generation of scientists and practitioners. In this lesson, I was invigorated by the depth of AGA opportunities for fellows and junior faculty in education, research, and involvement.
 

Self-reflection

Having the honor and privilege to review manuscripts upon submission also increased my critical view of my current practices. I now question the level of evidence for which current patient care practices are based, which allows me to better understand the research areas that need increased attention to improve the quality of our guidelines and evidence. For motivated fellows interested in a path of academic medicine, I would strongly advise applying for this prestigious fellowship. In no other training process could I have learned such a breadth of scientific skills and directly apply them to my patient care, my research, and my role as an educator. Furthermore, I was able to contribute to the reviewing and editing process, which allowed me to directly contribute to the field at an early stage of my career. In this final lesson, I exit this impactful Editorial Fellowship in self-reflection. I leave this fellowship humbled – by you – the reader who continues to learn to improve your patient care, the scientist as she works tirelessly to answer questions and contribute to the literature, the gastroenterology community for their willingness to teach and mentor fellows and early-career investigators and practitioners, and the patients who remind us that we all have a shared mission to advance scientific knowledge to improve patient care.

Dr. Naik is a gastroenterology fellow in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

Reference

1. Shah ED. Skills acquired during my 1-year AGA Editorial Fellowship. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(6):1563.

As a first-year gastroenterology fellow, banding my first patient with a variceal bleed was an exciting – but also stress-provoking – event. What if I banded incorrectly and caused more bleeding? With a successful band, a patient’s hemorrhagic shock is now controlled, hemodynamics improved, and euphoria takes over. Now, in my third year of a gastroenterology fellowship but my first year of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Editorial Fellowship, preparing to present the first manuscript that I handled to the Board of Editors at our weekly meeting has now induced the same excitement and need for the same level of dedication. Have I researched the foundational literature that this current manuscript was built on? What is the trajectory of this research and will this project be interesting to our readers and lead to breakthroughs in the field?

Gastroenterology is the premier flagship journal of the AGA and, in this Editorial Fellowship, I was selected to spend a fully immersive 1-year experience working on all aspects of this journal. In its second year of inception, I echo Dr. Eric Shah’s insight into the transformative and immersive nature of this fellowship.¹ In this role, I have made three developments, and each one has left me with a valuable lesson.

Mentorship

My first development was as a direct mentee under the leadership of the two editors in chief Richard Peek, MD, and Douglas Corley, MD, and associate editor John Inadomi, MD. In this role, I reviewed submitted manuscripts regarding outcome data of oncologic studies in the fields of colon, esophageal, and gastric cancer. I served as a reviewer for submitted manuscripts and discussed the impact, novelty, and decision for publication with the Board of Editors. In our weekly meetings, the associate editors discussed manuscripts that needed further review prior to acceptance, revision, or rejection. A few themes underpinned the discussion of these manuscripts:

• Is this science reproducible and is there scientific rigor for study design, validity, and analysis?
• How does this manuscript add to the current state of the literature?
• What is the trajectory of this research field?
• How will this manuscript lead to breakthroughs in this field?
• Are the advancements in this manuscript likely to lead to paradigm shifts in the field in its approach, design, or findings?

I also was fortunate to meet leaders in the field, including working daily in person with multiple members of the Board of Editors at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., as well as visiting professors, including Dr. Corley, Linda Rabeneck, MD, and T. Jake Liang, MD, who not only spoke on their scientific inquiries but also about their transitional path from gastroenterology fellows to pioneers in their respective fields. From these lessons, I have learned the scientific rigor of manuscript review for Gastroenterology and how to approach modern challenges in our field to directly improve patient care.
 

AGA’s commitment to early-career investigators

The Editorial Fellowship allowed me to expand a traditional third-year gastroenterology fellowship to dive deep into the intense path to get a manuscript published in Gastroenterology. Whereas 1 year prior, I had found dilating a complete esophageal stricture difficult, I now found myself learning to master clinical trial design, applying modern techniques of artificial intelligence, understanding organoid development, and navigating the impact of the microbiome. I was fortunate to be selected for Vanderbilt’s Master’s in Science in Clinical Investigation, which allowed me to apply my education not only to my own research but also to synergistically understand and deconstruct new submissions ranging from modern statistics with Bayesian modeling to analysis of large genetic data. All of this was built in the supportive framework of my mentoring committee.

As a fellow, I am inspired to see the multicenter, international collaboration to answer important questions in our field. Leveraging large databases and the expertise of multiple investigators, breakthroughs were made because of the collaborative nature of the science. This also was felt in the review process, where experts generously reviewed manuscripts to enhance the quality of the submission in order to advance knowledge in the field. Reading hundreds of these reviews this year has allowed me to refocus my current research studies and improve the way I write my current reviews. In the spirit of reproducible science and challenging the precision of study design, I was impressed by the time, effort, and dedication reviewers from our field spent to help improve the literature. Dr. Peek and Dr. Corley, our editors in chief, committed their time in discussing my innovations and critiques and displayed their level of interest in the opinions of early-career investigators and fostering the next generation of scientists and practitioners. In this lesson, I was invigorated by the depth of AGA opportunities for fellows and junior faculty in education, research, and involvement.
 

Self-reflection

Having the honor and privilege to review manuscripts upon submission also increased my critical view of my current practices. I now question the level of evidence for which current patient care practices are based, which allows me to better understand the research areas that need increased attention to improve the quality of our guidelines and evidence. For motivated fellows interested in a path of academic medicine, I would strongly advise applying for this prestigious fellowship. In no other training process could I have learned such a breadth of scientific skills and directly apply them to my patient care, my research, and my role as an educator. Furthermore, I was able to contribute to the reviewing and editing process, which allowed me to directly contribute to the field at an early stage of my career. In this final lesson, I exit this impactful Editorial Fellowship in self-reflection. I leave this fellowship humbled – by you – the reader who continues to learn to improve your patient care, the scientist as she works tirelessly to answer questions and contribute to the literature, the gastroenterology community for their willingness to teach and mentor fellows and early-career investigators and practitioners, and the patients who remind us that we all have a shared mission to advance scientific knowledge to improve patient care.

Dr. Naik is a gastroenterology fellow in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

Reference

1. Shah ED. Skills acquired during my 1-year AGA Editorial Fellowship. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(6):1563.

As a first-year gastroenterology fellow, banding my first patient with a variceal bleed was an exciting – but also stress-provoking – event. What if I banded incorrectly and caused more bleeding? With a successful band, a patient’s hemorrhagic shock is now controlled, hemodynamics improved, and euphoria takes over. Now, in my third year of a gastroenterology fellowship but my first year of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Editorial Fellowship, preparing to present the first manuscript that I handled to the Board of Editors at our weekly meeting has now induced the same excitement and need for the same level of dedication. Have I researched the foundational literature that this current manuscript was built on? What is the trajectory of this research and will this project be interesting to our readers and lead to breakthroughs in the field?

Gastroenterology is the premier flagship journal of the AGA and, in this Editorial Fellowship, I was selected to spend a fully immersive 1-year experience working on all aspects of this journal. In its second year of inception, I echo Dr. Eric Shah’s insight into the transformative and immersive nature of this fellowship.¹ In this role, I have made three developments, and each one has left me with a valuable lesson.

Mentorship

My first development was as a direct mentee under the leadership of the two editors in chief Richard Peek, MD, and Douglas Corley, MD, and associate editor John Inadomi, MD. In this role, I reviewed submitted manuscripts regarding outcome data of oncologic studies in the fields of colon, esophageal, and gastric cancer. I served as a reviewer for submitted manuscripts and discussed the impact, novelty, and decision for publication with the Board of Editors. In our weekly meetings, the associate editors discussed manuscripts that needed further review prior to acceptance, revision, or rejection. A few themes underpinned the discussion of these manuscripts:

• Is this science reproducible and is there scientific rigor for study design, validity, and analysis?
• How does this manuscript add to the current state of the literature?
• What is the trajectory of this research field?
• How will this manuscript lead to breakthroughs in this field?
• Are the advancements in this manuscript likely to lead to paradigm shifts in the field in its approach, design, or findings?

I also was fortunate to meet leaders in the field, including working daily in person with multiple members of the Board of Editors at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., as well as visiting professors, including Dr. Corley, Linda Rabeneck, MD, and T. Jake Liang, MD, who not only spoke on their scientific inquiries but also about their transitional path from gastroenterology fellows to pioneers in their respective fields. From these lessons, I have learned the scientific rigor of manuscript review for Gastroenterology and how to approach modern challenges in our field to directly improve patient care.
 

AGA’s commitment to early-career investigators

The Editorial Fellowship allowed me to expand a traditional third-year gastroenterology fellowship to dive deep into the intense path to get a manuscript published in Gastroenterology. Whereas 1 year prior, I had found dilating a complete esophageal stricture difficult, I now found myself learning to master clinical trial design, applying modern techniques of artificial intelligence, understanding organoid development, and navigating the impact of the microbiome. I was fortunate to be selected for Vanderbilt’s Master’s in Science in Clinical Investigation, which allowed me to apply my education not only to my own research but also to synergistically understand and deconstruct new submissions ranging from modern statistics with Bayesian modeling to analysis of large genetic data. All of this was built in the supportive framework of my mentoring committee.

As a fellow, I am inspired to see the multicenter, international collaboration to answer important questions in our field. Leveraging large databases and the expertise of multiple investigators, breakthroughs were made because of the collaborative nature of the science. This also was felt in the review process, where experts generously reviewed manuscripts to enhance the quality of the submission in order to advance knowledge in the field. Reading hundreds of these reviews this year has allowed me to refocus my current research studies and improve the way I write my current reviews. In the spirit of reproducible science and challenging the precision of study design, I was impressed by the time, effort, and dedication reviewers from our field spent to help improve the literature. Dr. Peek and Dr. Corley, our editors in chief, committed their time in discussing my innovations and critiques and displayed their level of interest in the opinions of early-career investigators and fostering the next generation of scientists and practitioners. In this lesson, I was invigorated by the depth of AGA opportunities for fellows and junior faculty in education, research, and involvement.
 

Self-reflection

Having the honor and privilege to review manuscripts upon submission also increased my critical view of my current practices. I now question the level of evidence for which current patient care practices are based, which allows me to better understand the research areas that need increased attention to improve the quality of our guidelines and evidence. For motivated fellows interested in a path of academic medicine, I would strongly advise applying for this prestigious fellowship. In no other training process could I have learned such a breadth of scientific skills and directly apply them to my patient care, my research, and my role as an educator. Furthermore, I was able to contribute to the reviewing and editing process, which allowed me to directly contribute to the field at an early stage of my career. In this final lesson, I exit this impactful Editorial Fellowship in self-reflection. I leave this fellowship humbled – by you – the reader who continues to learn to improve your patient care, the scientist as she works tirelessly to answer questions and contribute to the literature, the gastroenterology community for their willingness to teach and mentor fellows and early-career investigators and practitioners, and the patients who remind us that we all have a shared mission to advance scientific knowledge to improve patient care.

Dr. Naik is a gastroenterology fellow in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

Reference

1. Shah ED. Skills acquired during my 1-year AGA Editorial Fellowship. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(6):1563.

You have run your experiments, analyzed your data, and finished your manuscript, but now you are asked to write a cover letter for journal submission. How do you effectively convey your message in a cover letter? To understand how to gain the editors’ support for your paper, let us first discuss the role of this letter.

The cover letter is your first communication with the editors. As this serves as your first impression, you want to send a clear and concise message that highlights the novelty, validity, and significance of your manuscript. You also want to state why your manuscript would be a good fit for the journal. Keeping this letter concise and ideally to one page allows the editors to quickly review the highlights of your manuscript. Here are 10 steps we believe are important to follow when writing an effective cover letter (Table 1). We have listed examples to accompany each step; note that our examples are for illustrative purposes only.
 

1) Address the editor(s) formally by name in your cover letter

This information is found on the journal’s website and in the journal. Common mistakes we have seen is reporting the wrong editor(s) for submission or omitting an introduction. Though this cover letter is not published, it reflects poorly on the authors if there are incorrect editors listed or misspelled words.

Example:
Richard M. Peek, Jr., MD, and Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, MPH
Editors in Chief, Gastroenterology

Dear Drs. Peek and Corley:

2) Manuscript title and authors

Bolding your manuscript and listing the authors are essential parts of the cover letter.

3) Methods

We recommend dedicating one sentence to your methods. Take this time to highlight key features if appropriate, such as novel techniques, prospective enrollment, and randomized, controlled studies, which are all generally viewed as stronger study designs than retrospective studies. Make sure you are truthful in your claims. Mistakes we have seen include making claims the group is the “first” or the “largest,” but our review of the literature disproves these statements. These are false claims and raise flags regarding the integrity of the science.

4) Results and key findings

We recommend dedicating a sentence to the key finding of this study. This allows the editors in chief to identify which associate editor should handle the manuscript and highlights the importance of the study, which will determine whether the associate editor will send your paper for external review.

Example:
We found that combined endoscopic dilation and oral steroid therapy at index food impaction improved quality of life and need for repeat dilation measured at 1-year follow-up, compared with sham dilation and placebo.
 

5) Novelty

The editors want to know the degree to which your paper is unique among other publications in the field. We recommend emphasizing the novelty of your study as compared with other published work. The focus of this should be how your manuscript adds to the literature and serves to advance the science in this field.

Example:
Our study is unique because we enrolled patients in a pragmatic fashion at time of admission for food impaction to the emergency department. This design allows implementation of our intervention in most clinical settings, where we expect our findings to translate broadly into reduced hospital admissions and repeat endoscopic interventions, as well as improved quality of life as documented by patient-reported outcomes.

6) Submission to other journals

Certain manuscripts are only part of the entire study, which can be because of interim results or prespecified secondary endpoints. It is important to state whether this manuscript or any part has been published elsewhere or parts of the study are in submission elsewhere.

Example:
Neither the entire paper nor any part of its content has been published or has been accepted elsewhere. This work has not been submitted to any other journal, and in case of acceptance of the manuscript, the copyright is transferred to Gastroenterology.

7) Journal fit

Not all journals have the same readership or focus. When submitting to the journals, please highlight why this manuscript fits this journal and its readership. When able, also recommend what section of the journal this manuscript should go to for review. This allows for expedited review process and shows you understand the journal’s readership and categories.

Example:
We believe our study will be of great interest to readers of Gastroenterology and suggest the manuscript section: “Clinical: Alimentary Tract.”

8) Influence of sponsors and conflicts of interest

Given the concern for potential conflict of interests in study design, data collection, or analysis, we recommend listing any important conflicts of interest or study sponsors. The entire list of conflicts of interest is typically included elsewhere, but a sponsored study or direct conflict should be listed to prevent any perceived influence from sponsors that may limit data integrity.

Example:
The study was supported by RDN-Gastro, a nonprofit private organization aimed to promote clinical and translational research in eosinophilic esophagitis. The RDN-Gastro organization receives support from the National Institutes of Health and the Emergency Department Eosinophilic Esophagitis Association.

9) Suggestions for editors and reviewers

It is helpful to suggest potential associate editors to handle your manuscript. Similarly, suggesting potential reviewers (and providing their email addresses) who are experts in the field and understand your research topic can enhance the quality of reviews. Soliciting reviewers who you know may seem like a recipe for friendly reviews; however, this is a flawed assumption because sometimes these reviewers are more rigorous in their comments.

Example:
Preferred Associate Editor: John M. Inadomi.
Preferred Reviewer: Rishi Naik (Rishi.D.Naik@vumc.org); expertise in esophageal motility.

10) Do Not Review list (optional)

Unfortunately, not all review processes for all journals are created equal. For particular topics, you may wish to ensure your data are not compromised through the review process. Some journals will have the option for selecting reviewers who you prefer not review your manuscript and this request should be respected in the review process.

Example:
Nonpreferred reviewers: Rishi D. Naik (Nashville, TN).

In summary, the cover letter should be viewed as an opportunity to highlight the significance of your manuscript and reasons why your manuscript should be published in the journal. Highlighting the innovation, validity, and importance of your manuscript using this systematic approach will allow the editors and reviewers to more effectively evaluate your paper. Being truthful about potential conflicts of interest and sponsorships will also be appreciated by the editors. Good luck with your future submissions!
 

Dr. Naik is a gastroenterology fellow, department of gastroenterology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., as well as fellow editor of Gastroenterology. Dr. Inadomi is the Cyrus E. Rubin Chair, professor of medicine and head, division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, as well as associate editor of Gastroenterology. Dr. Naik and Dr. Inadomi have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

You have run your experiments, analyzed your data, and finished your manuscript, but now you are asked to write a cover letter for journal submission. How do you effectively convey your message in a cover letter? To understand how to gain the editors’ support for your paper, let us first discuss the role of this letter.

The cover letter is your first communication with the editors. As this serves as your first impression, you want to send a clear and concise message that highlights the novelty, validity, and significance of your manuscript. You also want to state why your manuscript would be a good fit for the journal. Keeping this letter concise and ideally to one page allows the editors to quickly review the highlights of your manuscript. Here are 10 steps we believe are important to follow when writing an effective cover letter (Table 1). We have listed examples to accompany each step; note that our examples are for illustrative purposes only.
 

1) Address the editor(s) formally by name in your cover letter

This information is found on the journal’s website and in the journal. Common mistakes we have seen is reporting the wrong editor(s) for submission or omitting an introduction. Though this cover letter is not published, it reflects poorly on the authors if there are incorrect editors listed or misspelled words.

Example:
Richard M. Peek, Jr., MD, and Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, MPH
Editors in Chief, Gastroenterology

Dear Drs. Peek and Corley:

2) Manuscript title and authors

Bolding your manuscript and listing the authors are essential parts of the cover letter.

3) Methods

We recommend dedicating one sentence to your methods. Take this time to highlight key features if appropriate, such as novel techniques, prospective enrollment, and randomized, controlled studies, which are all generally viewed as stronger study designs than retrospective studies. Make sure you are truthful in your claims. Mistakes we have seen include making claims the group is the “first” or the “largest,” but our review of the literature disproves these statements. These are false claims and raise flags regarding the integrity of the science.

4) Results and key findings

We recommend dedicating a sentence to the key finding of this study. This allows the editors in chief to identify which associate editor should handle the manuscript and highlights the importance of the study, which will determine whether the associate editor will send your paper for external review.

Example:
We found that combined endoscopic dilation and oral steroid therapy at index food impaction improved quality of life and need for repeat dilation measured at 1-year follow-up, compared with sham dilation and placebo.
 

5) Novelty

The editors want to know the degree to which your paper is unique among other publications in the field. We recommend emphasizing the novelty of your study as compared with other published work. The focus of this should be how your manuscript adds to the literature and serves to advance the science in this field.

Example:
Our study is unique because we enrolled patients in a pragmatic fashion at time of admission for food impaction to the emergency department. This design allows implementation of our intervention in most clinical settings, where we expect our findings to translate broadly into reduced hospital admissions and repeat endoscopic interventions, as well as improved quality of life as documented by patient-reported outcomes.

6) Submission to other journals

Certain manuscripts are only part of the entire study, which can be because of interim results or prespecified secondary endpoints. It is important to state whether this manuscript or any part has been published elsewhere or parts of the study are in submission elsewhere.

Example:
Neither the entire paper nor any part of its content has been published or has been accepted elsewhere. This work has not been submitted to any other journal, and in case of acceptance of the manuscript, the copyright is transferred to Gastroenterology.

7) Journal fit

Not all journals have the same readership or focus. When submitting to the journals, please highlight why this manuscript fits this journal and its readership. When able, also recommend what section of the journal this manuscript should go to for review. This allows for expedited review process and shows you understand the journal’s readership and categories.

Example:
We believe our study will be of great interest to readers of Gastroenterology and suggest the manuscript section: “Clinical: Alimentary Tract.”

8) Influence of sponsors and conflicts of interest

Given the concern for potential conflict of interests in study design, data collection, or analysis, we recommend listing any important conflicts of interest or study sponsors. The entire list of conflicts of interest is typically included elsewhere, but a sponsored study or direct conflict should be listed to prevent any perceived influence from sponsors that may limit data integrity.

Example:
The study was supported by RDN-Gastro, a nonprofit private organization aimed to promote clinical and translational research in eosinophilic esophagitis. The RDN-Gastro organization receives support from the National Institutes of Health and the Emergency Department Eosinophilic Esophagitis Association.

9) Suggestions for editors and reviewers

It is helpful to suggest potential associate editors to handle your manuscript. Similarly, suggesting potential reviewers (and providing their email addresses) who are experts in the field and understand your research topic can enhance the quality of reviews. Soliciting reviewers who you know may seem like a recipe for friendly reviews; however, this is a flawed assumption because sometimes these reviewers are more rigorous in their comments.

Example:
Preferred Associate Editor: John M. Inadomi.
Preferred Reviewer: Rishi Naik (Rishi.D.Naik@vumc.org); expertise in esophageal motility.

10) Do Not Review list (optional)

Unfortunately, not all review processes for all journals are created equal. For particular topics, you may wish to ensure your data are not compromised through the review process. Some journals will have the option for selecting reviewers who you prefer not review your manuscript and this request should be respected in the review process.

Example:
Nonpreferred reviewers: Rishi D. Naik (Nashville, TN).

In summary, the cover letter should be viewed as an opportunity to highlight the significance of your manuscript and reasons why your manuscript should be published in the journal. Highlighting the innovation, validity, and importance of your manuscript using this systematic approach will allow the editors and reviewers to more effectively evaluate your paper. Being truthful about potential conflicts of interest and sponsorships will also be appreciated by the editors. Good luck with your future submissions!
 

Dr. Naik is a gastroenterology fellow, department of gastroenterology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., as well as fellow editor of Gastroenterology. Dr. Inadomi is the Cyrus E. Rubin Chair, professor of medicine and head, division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, as well as associate editor of Gastroenterology. Dr. Naik and Dr. Inadomi have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
 

You have run your experiments, analyzed your data, and finished your manuscript, but now you are asked to write a cover letter for journal submission. How do you effectively convey your message in a cover letter? To understand how to gain the editors’ support for your paper, let us first discuss the role of this letter.

The cover letter is your first communication with the editors. As this serves as your first impression, you want to send a clear and concise message that highlights the novelty, validity, and significance of your manuscript. You also want to state why your manuscript would be a good fit for the journal. Keeping this letter concise and ideally to one page allows the editors to quickly review the highlights of your manuscript. Here are 10 steps we believe are important to follow when writing an effective cover letter (Table 1). We have listed examples to accompany each step; note that our examples are for illustrative purposes only.
 

1) Address the editor(s) formally by name in your cover letter

This information is found on the journal’s website and in the journal. Common mistakes we have seen is reporting the wrong editor(s) for submission or omitting an introduction. Though this cover letter is not published, it reflects poorly on the authors if there are incorrect editors listed or misspelled words.

Example:
Richard M. Peek, Jr., MD, and Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, MPH
Editors in Chief, Gastroenterology

Dear Drs. Peek and Corley:

2) Manuscript title and authors

Bolding your manuscript and listing the authors are essential parts of the cover letter.

3) Methods

We recommend dedicating one sentence to your methods. Take this time to highlight key features if appropriate, such as novel techniques, prospective enrollment, and randomized, controlled studies, which are all generally viewed as stronger study designs than retrospective studies. Make sure you are truthful in your claims. Mistakes we have seen include making claims the group is the “first” or the “largest,” but our review of the literature disproves these statements. These are false claims and raise flags regarding the integrity of the science.

4) Results and key findings

We recommend dedicating a sentence to the key finding of this study. This allows the editors in chief to identify which associate editor should handle the manuscript and highlights the importance of the study, which will determine whether the associate editor will send your paper for external review.

Example:
We found that combined endoscopic dilation and oral steroid therapy at index food impaction improved quality of life and need for repeat dilation measured at 1-year follow-up, compared with sham dilation and placebo.
 

5) Novelty

The editors want to know the degree to which your paper is unique among other publications in the field. We recommend emphasizing the novelty of your study as compared with other published work. The focus of this should be how your manuscript adds to the literature and serves to advance the science in this field.

Example:
Our study is unique because we enrolled patients in a pragmatic fashion at time of admission for food impaction to the emergency department. This design allows implementation of our intervention in most clinical settings, where we expect our findings to translate broadly into reduced hospital admissions and repeat endoscopic interventions, as well as improved quality of life as documented by patient-reported outcomes.

6) Submission to other journals

Certain manuscripts are only part of the entire study, which can be because of interim results or prespecified secondary endpoints. It is important to state whether this manuscript or any part has been published elsewhere or parts of the study are in submission elsewhere.

Example:
Neither the entire paper nor any part of its content has been published or has been accepted elsewhere. This work has not been submitted to any other journal, and in case of acceptance of the manuscript, the copyright is transferred to Gastroenterology.

7) Journal fit

Not all journals have the same readership or focus. When submitting to the journals, please highlight why this manuscript fits this journal and its readership. When able, also recommend what section of the journal this manuscript should go to for review. This allows for expedited review process and shows you understand the journal’s readership and categories.

Example:
We believe our study will be of great interest to readers of Gastroenterology and suggest the manuscript section: “Clinical: Alimentary Tract.”

8) Influence of sponsors and conflicts of interest

Given the concern for potential conflict of interests in study design, data collection, or analysis, we recommend listing any important conflicts of interest or study sponsors. The entire list of conflicts of interest is typically included elsewhere, but a sponsored study or direct conflict should be listed to prevent any perceived influence from sponsors that may limit data integrity.

Example:
The study was supported by RDN-Gastro, a nonprofit private organization aimed to promote clinical and translational research in eosinophilic esophagitis. The RDN-Gastro organization receives support from the National Institutes of Health and the Emergency Department Eosinophilic Esophagitis Association.

9) Suggestions for editors and reviewers

It is helpful to suggest potential associate editors to handle your manuscript. Similarly, suggesting potential reviewers (and providing their email addresses) who are experts in the field and understand your research topic can enhance the quality of reviews. Soliciting reviewers who you know may seem like a recipe for friendly reviews; however, this is a flawed assumption because sometimes these reviewers are more rigorous in their comments.

Example:
Preferred Associate Editor: John M. Inadomi.
Preferred Reviewer: Rishi Naik (Rishi.D.Naik@vumc.org); expertise in esophageal motility.

10) Do Not Review list (optional)

Unfortunately, not all review processes for all journals are created equal. For particular topics, you may wish to ensure your data are not compromised through the review process. Some journals will have the option for selecting reviewers who you prefer not review your manuscript and this request should be respected in the review process.

Example:
Nonpreferred reviewers: Rishi D. Naik (Nashville, TN).

In summary, the cover letter should be viewed as an opportunity to highlight the significance of your manuscript and reasons why your manuscript should be published in the journal. Highlighting the innovation, validity, and importance of your manuscript using this systematic approach will allow the editors and reviewers to more effectively evaluate your paper. Being truthful about potential conflicts of interest and sponsorships will also be appreciated by the editors. Good luck with your future submissions!
 

Dr. Naik is a gastroenterology fellow, department of gastroenterology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., as well as fellow editor of Gastroenterology. Dr. Inadomi is the Cyrus E. Rubin Chair, professor of medicine and head, division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, as well as associate editor of Gastroenterology. Dr. Naik and Dr. Inadomi have no conflicts of interest to disclose.